Scottish Electrification Process

[najaB]

Didn't want to mess up the thread in Infrastructure...

Do you think there's any benefit in local electification around Inverness and/or Aberdeen before the main routes from the south are completed? I could see benefit in wiring up Inverness to Tain, Carrbridge and Elgin and Inverurie to Montrose so that local services could be operated by EMUs in advance of full electrification from Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen to Inverness.

Thoughts?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Straight answer to your question is : imho YES. If there is a good point to put the power supply nearby, order the grid connection and all the heavy electrical kit and electrify 20 miles or so either side of it. Great for battery top ups and bimodes as an interim solution.

 

[gingertom]

Straight answer to your question is : imho YES. If there is a good point to put the power supply nearby, order the grid connection and all the heavy electrical kit and electrify 20 miles or so either side of it. Great for battery top ups and bimodes as an interim solution.

the grid criss-crosses the railway all the way north. Thornton Jnc, Hilton Jnc, Site of the old Kinnaber jnc, Kintore, Beauly. That'll do for a start. Aberdeen station is next to a major electrical switch node.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

the grid criss-crosses the railway all the way north. Thornton Jnc, Hilton Jnc, Site of the old Kinnaber jnc, Kintore, Beauly. That'll do for a start. Aberdeen station is next to a major electrical switch node.

Great stuff - get it done. Good politically too - gets 2 more of the 7 cities sparked up with no input from Westminster.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The rail networks around Aberdeen and Inverness aren't large enough to make it worthwhile. You need a critical mass of independent services before it becomes worth having a separate fleet, and you'd need a separate fleet to make use of any wires in any meaningful sense. It's definitely worth developing more local rail services for these cities, but at most you're talking about another train or two per hour and a few reopened stations on the existing line. From a transport perspective both Inverness and Aberdeen would probably fare better with a non-heavy-rail solution for local transport that overlays the fairly minimal rail network.

 

[najaB]

You need a critical mass of independent services before it becomes worth having a separate fleet, and you'd need a separate fleet to make use of any wires in any meaningful sense

As a standalone project, yes. But this would just be jump-starting the process by wiring up the ends of the routes and working towards the middle.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As a standalone project, yes. But this would just be jump-starting the process by wiring up the ends of the routes and working towards the middle.

I can see the attraction but practically it generates more difficulties and may generate additional costs, unfortunately.

The problem is feeding arrangements, as is usual with these sorts of things. I suspect you may be falling into the trap of assuming new electrification means new feeders, and whilst that's often the case, it's not always the case. The nice thing about extending existing electrification is that you can often make use of the existing, adjacent feeder(s) - whether to power part of the new electrification, or just to provide emergency feeding flexibility in the event of feeder/grid failure.

If you decide to electrify one area remote to the remainder of the electrification, you lose that flexibility. Aberdeen and Inverness on their own will both be more than capable of being supplied from one feeder each though, so that's not a massive problem, but trying to wire them independently may leave feeders and electrical connections in less than ideal positions for the remainder of the electrification. That's the sort of thing one would only truly discover when progressing the design work, of course.

I also don't know how that sort of approach would work with rolling stock - Inverness TMD is pretty well equipped but could you keep a small fleet of EMU stock operational out of Clayhills or would you need to drag stock to Inverness or the central belt for heavy maintenance work ?

 

[Meerkat]

As there is a rolling programme of Scottish electrification will they design the whole thing at top level before starting?
ie before they get the shovels out anywhere they already know the basic plan for feeders etc for the end state network such that if it popped out that Aberdeen/inverness was a sensible island it might go up the building timetable.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So perhaps the sensible thing really is to remodel Perth first then do Stirling to Perth and onto Dundee. That way you still get 2 more of the 7 cities and leave Aberdeen and Inverness to the last.

 

[gingertom]

So perhaps the sensible thing really is to remodel Perth first then do Stirling to Perth and onto Dundee. That way you still get 2 more of the 7 cities and leave Aberdeen and Inverness to the last.

Perth will need sorting out sooner or later. However there might be some mileage tackling the Fife Circle first- this would be of benefit to commuters into Edinburgh and allow more electric running of LNER services to Aberdeen. I does mean that a certain bridge has to be done, which we have been assured isn't a problem, although that route has problematic tunnels too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don’t disagree but politics always raises its ugly head and that is why I am going for Perth and Dundee and possibly Fife Circle all happening at the same time approximately.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As there is a rolling programme of Scottish electrification will they design the whole thing at top level before starting?
ie before they get the shovels out anywhere they already know the basic plan for feeders etc for the end state network such that if it popped out that Aberdeen/inverness was a sensible island it might go up the building timetable.

Yes - not precisely until more detailed design work is undertaken, but there's a good idea already where feeders could be situated. There's quite a lot of discussion with the grid operators to be undertaken though, as Scotland has a lot of renewable schemes approved and in pre-construction - these will potentially impact on what goes where for the railway.

So perhaps the sensible thing really is to remodel Perth first then do Stirling to Perth and onto Dundee. That way you still get 2 more of the 7 cities and leave Aberdeen and Inverness to the last.

Perth will need sorting out sooner or later. However there might be some mileage tackling the Fife Circle first- this would be of benefit to commuters into Edinburgh and allow more electric running of LNER services to Aberdeen. I does mean that a certain bridge has to be done, which we have been assured isn't a problem, although that route has problematic tunnels too.

I'd go with a twin pronged attack of getting electrification to Dundee via both routes first, then decide on priorities for further electrification northwards, whether to focus on Aberdeen or Inverness first, or go for rolling slowly north for both, such as focusing on Arbroath on the way to Aberdeen and Pitlochry and then Dalwhinnie on the way to Inverness.

It's a hard call to make, Aberdeen is the busier route but electric traction to Inverness will cut a number of minutes on a long journey, the only problem with electrification to Inverness is understanding what impact it will have on passing places/loops on the route and where more/longer double track sections will be needed.

 

[route101]

Work has already started on East Kilbride wiring. Though there is no timescale for when its to be complete.

 

[DC21]

Does anyone know if the ECS movements from Whifflet to Wishaw will ever become passenger services? I know after the Whifflet line was electricified there was talk of this. Wishaw now has the DOO screens and signals for wrong direction movements from platform 2